Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is? not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?” – Epicurus

It is not at all my intention through this article to try to diminish the accomplishments of Epicurus as a philosopher and meritorious contributor to humanity. However, what do want to do is to point that Epicurus’ paradox or trilemma can be resolved consistent with the nature of an all-knowing, all-powerful and all-loving God.

Postulating the Personality of God

Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love. 1 John 4:8There is no fear in love; but perfect love casteth out fear. 1 John 4:18

Apart from having accepted God’s existence, it is furthermore my firm belief that the nature of God is purely benevolent. I know however that this contention clashes with the biblical rendition of a god who is both loving and hateful. But I do not think that such a portrayal is accurately representative of God. Therefore I do admit to cherry-pick scriptural passages that back up my belief while disregarding conflicting passages for the present purpose.

I assert the following scripturally supported postulate about the nature of God:

By inverting the three-pronged meaning of G, we obtain what God would be not: a god of fear, control/intolerance and vengeance/vindictiveness. In other words, consistent with the G postulate, God is not to be presumed to be a de facto dictatorial tyrant.

I will try to show that it is possible to refute both Epicurus’ and Heinlein’s atheistic argument (see next part) with logical argumentation combined with the assumption of G.

Why would love rather than fear be definitional to God? What are the fundamental differences of fear and love in their respective impact on the maintenance of life? Let’s have a comparative look.

An atmosphere of love sustains life as it enables and promotes growth and prosperity. On the other hand, an atmosphere of fear stifles life as it encourages the application of life’s available energy into the building of defences against potential threats (think for instance of the fashionable global political hype called Terrorism™). Love is the great agent of reconciliation and fosters harmony, unity, symbiosis and cooperation. Fear is the great agent of alienation and promotes chaos, division, parasitism and rivalry. Love graciously and freely gives and shares. Fear wants to seize and hoard. Indeed from love naturally derives other divine virtues: grace (patience) and mercy (forgiveness). Fear breeds impatience and vengeful vindictiveness. Love affords the patience needed to foster wisdom and rationality. Fear, by necessity, is too much in a hurry and so cannot hope to escape irrationality.

I could probably go on comparing the attributes of love and fear for a while, but you probably get my drift.

It should have become clear, that whereas fear is the currency of destruction, love is the currency of construction. As the supreme overlord of creation, how then can God be anything but an agent of love? In this article I will further argue that indeed God not only is a god of love, but a god untainted by fear and anger, a god of pure love.

“Whence cometh evil?” – The Cause of Evil

I suggest that the existence of evil is predicated on the existence of free will: God’s great–arguably, greatest– gift to humanity. Why did God gave us free will? Well, conformal to G, it is only fair to assume that God wants us to love him and to love each-other. This notion is also repeatedly confirmed by scripture, see e.g. Mark 12:28-31; Matthew 5:43-48; John 13:34-35; 1 John 4:9-11, 19; 1 Corinthians 13: 1-8. The manifestation of love however, cannot happen if we do not have free will, i.e. free choice, at our disposal. If we do not choose to love God based on our free and unguided volition, but rather are forced to do so, then the kind of associated “love” cannot be genuine as it is ultimately rooted in fear, the polar opposite of love. In addition, if hypothetically we would be incapable of experiencing fear, i.e. by not being sufficiently conscious (of our own existence as beings and the environment we thrive in), and also are forced to “love” God then that “love” would even be less genuine. In effect, we would then be oblivious to our servitude and in a way merely programmed to love God, similar to how robots are programmed to fearlessly and unconsciously and therefore blindly “obey” the commands of their programmer or “master.”

Since God –by his nature, as the embodiment of love— does not desire to coerce us into fostering false love, nor does he want us to act as unconscious automatons, he endowed us with the possibility of free choice. And that is what genuine love is all about: to love without compulsion and regardless of conditions, whether those conditions are good or bad. In other words, God desires our true love. He desires us to love him for better or for worse.

A consequence of having obtained free will however, is the power to do evil — which basically is the ability to do the opposite of good, the latter which would be preferential to God. By virtue of having free will, one has been granted the freedom to act in very opposition of God and so to freely engage in the pursuit of evil. Nonetheless, those who chose to antagonise God, by violating any of his commandments, should also be prepared to take responsibility for their actions.

Is God to blame for the existence and proliferation of evil? No, an emphatic no, because we ourselves choose to commit acts that are counter to the will of God. Therefore human evil exists because we ourselves choose to create it, not God. To hold God responsible for actions we ourselves choose to do, is like always blaming car factories every time a car accident happens. Assuming for sake of argument, that factory-errors are negligibly influential, it makes much more sense to focus on the driving errors committed by the car drivers rather than it is to seek the blame at car factories. Indeed, it’s simply irresponsible for car drivers to shift the blame onto the car factories when they really should be pointing the finger at the man in the mirror.

And so the proliferation of evil could be understood as the consequence of the possession of free will combined with a lack of ethical sensibility or maturity of being. Nonetheless it should be admitted that –by virtue of his omniscience– God is perfectly and intimately aware of the existence of evil in all of its dimensions (motive, execution, victims, culprits etc.)but through his gracious gift of free will– he generally maintains a policy of non-intervention as–I dare say–evil has a function, a purpose.

Croatian "Ustashe" Nazis casually posing in front of the camera as they are about the decapitate a captured non-combatant with a SAW. The utterly barbaric depravity of the Ustashes is known to have even embarrassed German SS officers and the degree of their manifested sadism promptly places the dreaded Ustashe regime among the most brutal of despotic regimes the world has had the misfortune of having to deal with over the last few centuries. Noteworthy detail: the Ustashes, being a Catholic movement, were openly supported by the Vatican.

“Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.” – The Purpose of Evil

“Memory is the mother of all wisdom.” ~ Aeschylus“Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.” ~ George Santayana“The price good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men.” ~ Plato

Is it true that God would be malevolent by choosing to not actively prevent evil from taking place? No, not all all. In fact, it’s arguably God’s greatest gift to us to let us act freely and to truly freely live and learn from life as we go. Only a guardian who truly loves us would grant and trust us with complete freedom.

If God were to noticeably intervene in our affairs without us asking for it, even if the nature of his interventions were such that direct injustice would be prevented from taking place, then he would likely be regarded as a guardian who’s worthy of our fears as he gathered a reputation for being intolerant and even tyrannical; having an approving heart only when our intentions are good and a prohibitive heart when we intend to do bad.

This may sound surprising, so allow me to explain myself.

Concretely, let’s say that God would actively thwart human beings from committing the worst acts of evil, e.g. murder and rape. Consequently, by not being able to engage in evil acts, the nature of the most grotesque forms of evil always remain abstract and theoretical to us. Therefore, by having been denied to know the effects of the worst kinds of evil, we would never truly know what it’s like to inflict maximum harm to our fellow human being. We would never truly know what it’s like to inflict raw and uncensored suffering.

For example, the husband who wants to kill his wife because she committed adultery, is now obstructed from accomplishing his lust for vengeance. Besides possibly having some vague theoretical idea of the potential experience, he will thus never really get to know the full first-hand experience of inflicting horrific pain and suffering on his fellow human being. Or, as another example, the wife who wants to kill her husband for deserting her for another woman and it so happens that she now is stuck not only with a broken heart but also a multitude of hungry mouths to feed. Through God’s precrime policing enforcement, she now too cannot follow her vengeful intentions through. She will thus never truly know what it’s like to overrule evil with evil; to repay evil in kind. She too will be denied the possibility from ever truly grasping what it’s like to inflict the most grotesque forms of suffering on fellow human beings.

But the denial of the realisation of evil retributive plans does not automatically take away the desire for doing so. The hearts of the people who have been thwarted–unless they come to their senses on their own–will remain vindictive and likely grow bitter. They will likely learn to fear and hate their then demonstrably oppressive God. Since God is a god of grace–at least, that’s my conviction– there is a contradiction here and this alone speaks in disfavour of the idea that God would have a tyrannical streak.

It would thus seem that it’s necessary for us to experience evil in its most unrepressed and uncensored guise; so that we can learn–literally through bloody trial and bloody error–to foster a closing and complete love for our fellow human being. A love that rises the better we understand the full scope and impact of what it is like to inflict harm on other human beings, and more importantly getting hurt by reprisal. By understanding the fabric of evil in its most intimate gory detail, we will learn to measure the effect of evil acts on other people by our own experiences, i.e. when we ourselves were the victims of evil. After having learned what it’s like to be on the receiving end of evil, we are thence able to build uncoerced sympathy and empathy for our fellow human being.

If however, we were to be censored from bringing the full ugly gamut of evil into fruition then–beyond mere speculation and theorising–there is no practical or experiential means available for its true discovery and understanding. One may even wonder if we would then be able to foster a genuine sympathetic relationship to fellow human beings beyond the circle of family and friends.

It would thus seem that an unadulterated catharsis of evil is a necessary condition for us–as free but inexperienced beings–to able to learn to clean up the messy products of evil that we ourselves choose to spill; and so to be able to finally learn to prefer doing good over evil or, as Jesus said in Romans 12:21, to overcome evil with good.

Evil can thus be understood to be our cruel but self-invited and thus vitally needed faceless teacher. It is thus important to not only not ignore evil but to also learn from it, especially when we fall victim to it; to scrutinise its character and motive, so that we can finally learn to overrule it and trade it for proper. The function of evil could thus be understood as a stimulant for us to learn to wanting to do good, based on free volition and experiential background, rather than having to do good, facilitated by mechanical coercion and possibly robotic ignorance.

Raising public awareness to the full spectrum and depth of evil is crucial to the ongoing learning process of choosing to replace evil with good.

What about Rooting out Evil with Violence?

Hypothetically, would it be consistent with the personality of God– as represented by postulate G— for any of his agents to seek to rid the world of a body of established or organised evil through violent annihilation?

Suppose that out of the entire human global population evil is decided to be confined to a subgroup of people who engage in acts of evil. By the fact that human beings are social beings, it’s only fair to assume that those evil people have family members and friends who may not be considered to be evil, i.e. people who do not engage in patently evil acts. If an exterminator were to go ahead and kill all the evil people, then a new group of victimized people would be catalyzed into existence whose members would naturally resent the exterminator. Consequently, that new group now in all likelihood grows to hate the exterminator.

If a representative of God were to be the exterminator, then he would rather understandably be received as someone who uses deadly violence as a means to restore peace and harmony. In other words, he would be interpreted as a tyrant who’s not afraid to inflict death unto people who meet the classification for evil. In addition, it’s to be expected that the new group is to become the new evil as its members become motivated to actively seek opposition to a God they perceive as being a tyrannical god of death. Therefore, the people of this new group probably will grow to hate God.

Now compare the actions of that representative of God with the God is Love principle of 1 John 4:8, only to find a contradiction. If indeed God is Love then it’s proper to assume that God wants to be loved rather than hated. In fact, the Bible is replete with encouragements to do just that.

Therefore maintaining the peace with the proverbial sword and at the same time abide to the divine attribute as mentioned in 1 John 4:8 is simply impossible. In addition, there is no such thing as a clean and permanent extraction of evil with violent means. Hence, the only reasonable alternative to overcome evil, one which is compatible with 1 John 4:8, is to resort to grace instead of coercion, mercy instead of revenge and the extension of love rather than the imposition of fear-driven violence.

Or, in the words of Jesus:

17Recompense to no man evil for evil. Provide things honest in the sight of all men. Romans 12:17

Epilogue

Human life as such can be understood to be a life-long educational experience, a school if you will, albeit unmistakeably also a school of brutal hard knocks. In this school, which no-one can escape, the study of the law of cause and effect is fundamental. How well you do on this school depends on how well you grasp this law. Of particular curricular interest is the discipline to learn by observation from the cause and effect of acts that can be termed evil and the cause and effect of acts that are good. Observation can be done whether you are a spectator or an actor, in the latter case observation becomes introspection.

If your actions have a cause in fear, then suffering and misery is the likely effect. Alternatively if your actions are borne out by love then prosperity is likely to follow. If you are good to your fellow human beings, they will likely return the favour.

Learning to accept to take responsibility for your actions rather than pinning them on others or on God is a fundamental element in getting to truly master the law of cause and effect and to use it to become a better and more righteous person.

It is perhaps somewhat ironic that it was Epicurus himself who also understood the virtue of analysis in order to better them. The abstinence from inflicting harm on fellow human beings was pivotal in his teachings:

It is impossible to live a pleasant life without living wisely and well and justly (agreeing “neither to harm nor be harmed“), and it is impossible to live wisely and well and justly without living a pleasant life.

Therefore, in addition to spending most of the time with one’s friends as being crucial for experiencing happiness, Epicurus very well understood the virtue of treating the people whom one interacts with on a basis of respect and love. In fact, he proved to advocate the type of moral compass that was very much akin to the kind Jesus years later would also come to preach about:

28One of the teachers of the law came and heard them debating. Noticing that Jesus had given them a good answer, he asked him, “Of all the commandments, which is the most important?”

29“The most important one,” answered Jesus, “is this: ‘Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one.[a]30Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’[b]31The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’[c]There is no commandment greater than these.”Mark 12:28-31

The way of doing good is the way of love and so is the constructive way of God. And to those in denial of its merit, choosing to swerve onto the destructive path of doing evil, the path of fear, ought to induce a painful and unpleasant reminder for the need to return to the former again.

Phil, I am here not to Protest Rome (from where we get the term Protestant). I am here to proclaim Jesus Christ.(1 Corinthians 2:2, “For I determined not to know anything among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified”)also (Hebrews 10:31 “It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living GOD”).That is a healthy fear. example: If I saw your house burning, and if I knew you were inside your house asleep. Wouldn’t you want me to come in to your house and tell you? ” Hey Phil, your house is burning. You’d better get out of here before you get killed!!!”) I would be striking a healthy fear into your heart IN LOVE, and if you were smart, you would get out of that burning house right away!!!! That’s the way it is in the spiritual realm. There is a heaven to gain and a hell to shun. You see, IT’S ALL GOOD!!. The whole Bible, that is. My Bible is not a loose leaf, ie (Cherry Picker’s Version!!) I’m referring to the comment that you made about using the Cherry Picker method. ie using what suited you for the moment. Evil is evil because Eve took of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil first, and then DUM, DUM hubby ADAM was just as DUM as Eve and partook, and that’s why we have the mess we all see:(Genisis 3:6), also (Genisis 3:22). It would behoove you to look these verses up.BUT God in His Mercy Prophesied about the coming of the Christ to redeem his elect bride a ROYAL PRIESTHOOD (any one who is a true beleiver in Christ). The book of Hebrews speaks about the PRIESTHOOD of all beleivers.(Male or Female) I was saying that God prophesied about the coming of Christ to redeem his elect BRIDE, and forgot to give you the scripture reference for that: one of many; first mention of it is Genisis 3:15. PLEASE LOOK UP- It is a key to understand what the Bible is all about. ie Christ’s Birth, Death, Burial, and Ressurection, and soon return. I’m not gonna hide behind Rome or any hypocrisy I see in Apostate Christianity or Atheists etc. That makes me smaller than them. I am saved and want to see others saved. Yes, even the terrible Ragheads. I mean that. God can save people out of even that nasty God hating religion. Every thing needs to be balanced out. That’s why the Bible seems to have contradictions, but what the natural man sees with our natural eyes, is not right. We don’t have to keep apologizing for evil. God is indeed omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient. He has it all under control.He raises up leaders and brings them down.He puts the basest of men or women in power so we realize that it is His world, so we might begin to look to Him and not ourselves.The verse to corrospond with “basest of men is in either Psalms or Proverbs. And there is a time for everything. ECCLESIASTES 3:1 through 8. We don’t want to cherry pick that scriptue now do we??? Phil? LOVINGLY IN HIS SERVICE, and FREE in CHRIST, CINDY

After reading this article and taking ample time to digest it, my heart is elated to see that Abba is presented in a clear fashion and Atheism is not only understood better, but appreciated with compassion. The statements above written by “Cindy” are common rhetorical blanket statments that most Christians say without knowledge of what they are saying. It has been fed and programmed for so long that it feels right to say that we should fear God because it is a “healthy” fear. That is ludicrous! Fear is a spiritual cancer and always eats away at the very core of our faith. Just as there is no such thing as a “healthy” cancer, neither is there a “healthy” fear.

I Timothy 1:7
“For GOD hath not given us a the Spirit of Fear: but of Power, and of Love, and of a Sound Mind.”

The example of a healthy fear given by Cindy: ” If I saw your house burning, and if I knew you were inside your house asleep. Wouldn’t you want me to come in to your house and tell you? ” Hey Phil, your house is burning. You’d better get out of here before you get killed!!!”) I would be striking a healthy fear into your heart IN LOVE, and if you were smart, you would get out of that burning house right away!!!! That’s the way it is in the spiritual realm”

This is NOT striking a healthy fear into Phil’s heart, it would be a warning of danger from a friend out of kindness or love in order to save Phil from burning. If Phil chose not to take heed to the warning then he would inevitably perish or be severely burned. The objective in this situation would not be to instill FEAR into Phil, but rather to inform/warn him of impending danger. So it is with our Heavenly Father; he warns us in so many different ways of potenital dangers to our soul, body and mind. It is our free-will to heed the warnings and make beneficial choices or we can “stay in the house and burn” but either way, our Lord is not trying to SCARE us, he is a good Father and what good father would intentionally frighten his children that he loves?

We, as Christians, regergitate what we have heard another preacher(s) say or we quote the scriptures like parrots in a cage without cognisance of what we are really saying. For instance, is Cindy aware that the Bible has undergone several (re)translations just since the 1600’s? The King James Version is unquestionably compromised by the Catholic church, not to mention that when King James commissioned his scholars to translate the scriptures, these men were only learned in the study of the language; they were not familiar with the Near Eastern customs or colloquialisms.

“Originally, the Eastern Aramaic text of the New Testament consisted of 22 books. The book of the Revelationand four epistles-2 Peter, 2 John and Jude-were not included. the book of the Revelation was accepted after the Council of Nicaea, 325 CE, but many of the Eastern Bishops in Persia rejected it.” –Aramaic Light on the Gospel of John, George Lamsa

So much has been lost in translation from what Jesus spoke, which was Aramaic, then to Hebrew-to Greek-to English. Here are some examples:

1. The Aramaic word “gamla” has three meanings: “camel, large rope, beam.” Therefore, in Aramaic, Matthew 19:25 correctly reads, “It is easier for a rope to go through a needle’s eye…” and not “It is easier for a camel..”
Yet how many times has Cindy or most Christians heard it quoted the way the Vulgate (vulgar) translation states it? We MUST study to show ourselves approved unto GOD so that we are not put to shame when we “share” the Light of Truth which is the Gospel.

2. In the Greek version of John’s Gospel, 12:40, we read: “He hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart; that they should not see with their eyes, nor understand with their heart; and be converted, and I should heal them.” The Aramaic Peshitta text of scripture reads: “Their eyes have become blind and their heart darkened, so that they cannot see with their eyes nor udnerstand with their heart, let them return and I will heal them.” In Aramaic the word “avaro” means “have become blind.” The grammatical differences between “He made them blind” and “have become blind” is indicated by the final letter “o” which is the third person plural.

There are multitudes of examples relating to Vulgate translation that most Christians quote. In order to stay with the topic of the “Fear of God” and how it is healthy, one must look closely at the Truth! When the men of the Bible were writing, they were writing in journals/diaries and so it is THEIR perception that one should fear God, and therefore it was common to admonish/exhort the people to be afraid of angering God. Anger is an emotion that aroused when one is in disagreement with another’s behavior or certain outcome. God being omniscient knows the begining from the end, so how then does an ALL KNOWING God get angry about what he already knew we were going to do? However, this was a pagan practice/belief. Sacrifices were given to other gods in fear of their wrath. Cherry picking is necessary when dealing with texts that are in areas, erroneous due to human fallibility. It is written, “Do not add to what I command you and do not subtract from it, but keep the commands of the LORD your God that I give you.” Duet 4:2 yet this has happened repeatedly since the 1st Century church began evolving; it continues even today! So in the sense that Phil is speaking of “cherry picking” is the same as one that has an orchard and at the time of harvest he/she picks the apples that are edible. Who would pick the rotten fruit to eat? Or fruit that is not ripe enough to eat?

Another point that deserves attention is the following made by Cindy,

“Evil is evil because Eve took of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil first, and then DUM, DUM hubby ADAM was just as DUM as Eve and partook, and that’s why we have the mess we all see:(Genisis 3:6), also (Genisis 3:22). It would behoove you to look these verses up.BUT God in His Mercy Prophesied about the coming of the Christ to redeem his elect bride a ROYAL PRIESTHOOD (any one who is a true beleiver in Christ). The book of Hebrews speaks about the PRIESTHOOD of all beleivers.(Male or Female) I was saying that God prophesied about the coming of Christ to redeem his elect BRIDE, and forgot to give you the scripture reference for that: one of many; first mention of it is Genisis 3:15. PLEASE LOOK UP- It is a key to understand what the Bible is all about.”

Did God pay a ransom in order to “redeem” us? This probably the most misunderstood theological doctrine due to the fact that Western readers are not familiar with Near Eastern customs and mannerisms of speech. As a preacher’s kid and an ordained minister myself, I have personally discoursed with many biblical teachers, preachers and layperson who sincerely believe that God sacrificed Jesus of Nazareth in order to pay the debt of sin. Religious teachers often use the term “redemption” to mean that God paid a ransom or price to redeem the human race from sin and evil. However, in order to redeem something, a price has to be paid to someone, correct? To whom did God pay a price? Is there someone greater than God? Is sin or evil greater than God that God would have to pay a price to purchase his people back from evil? The payment, of course, was Jesus’ blood, shed on the cross. Now, there are other sects of Christianity that say that God reconciled himself to humanity by Jesus’ death or that God appeased his own wrath against humanity through the shed blood of his beloved son.

Interstingly, nearly all passages of scripture that are in the King James version read “redemption,” but in the ancient Aramaic text the word is “porkana,” meaning “salvation” and not redemption. Remember that Jesus spoke in Aramaic and the writings were as such. As we have determined, redemption is made effective by means of a payment or a ransom to someone else. We often say that “Jesus died for our sins” and that they (our sins) could not be forgiven without his death. The important meaning of the Aramaic word “mittol” is “because of” or “on account of” and lastly “for.” This is to mean that Jesus died -because of our sins-and not for them.

Ministers teach that Jesus took our sins upon himself and offered them to God; others say that God forsook Jesus while he was on the cross because God couldnot look at the sins that Jesus was bearing. In the Bible, we read,

” And there is no creature hidden from His sight, but all things are open and laid bare to the eyes of Him with whom we have to do.” Hebrews 4:13

So how could God turn away from Jesus on the cross because he was bearing the sins of humanity? Yet in John’s gospel we read that when Jesus forgave sinners, all he said was: “Go and sin no more.” He did not command an offering to appease God’s wrath. Jesus taught forgiveness of sin differently. Luke’s gospel reports the risen Christ saying: “And he said to them, Thus it is written, and it was right, that Christ should suffer and rise from the dead on the third day; and that REPENTANCE SHOULD BE PREACHED IN HIS NAME FOR THE FORGIVENESS OF SINS AMONG ALL NATIONS; and the beginning will be from Jerusalem.” Luke 24:46-47 Forgiveness was to come through repentance–that is, turning to God–and not by blood sacrifice.

We read in so many places in the Old Testament (starting with Cain/Able story in Genesis & Moses giving the word to Hebrews in Exodus) concerning animal/blood sacrifice. However, God the Father, NEVER commanded this!!!
First, let us look into human sacrifice. “Human sacrifice” or child sacrifice was one of the most appalling abuses in the ancient world. The Ammonites, Moabites, the Phoenicians, the people of Egypt, Canaan and Greece all practiced child sacrifice. Animal sacrifice eventually replaced human oblation. Exodus 22:29 commands the sacrifice of the firstborn male (child sacrifice). Yet, the Torah abolishes the sacrifice of the firstborn son by offering an animal in his place (Exodus 34:20;13:13) The law sanctioned animals as a substitution. Nevertheless, animal sacrifice is also an abuse.

In the books of the prophets we find intense condemnation against animal sacrifice! The prophet Jeremiah has penned on the most vigorous criticisms and denunciations of this practice as a means for atonement. He adamatly DENIES that God EVER commanded Moses, as described in the elaborate detail in the Torah, to slaughter animals for offerings to God.

JEREMIAH 7:21-23

“Thus says the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel: Add YOUR burnt offerings to YOUR sacrifices and eat meat which I did not command your father to eat. Neither did I command them concerning either burn offerings or sacrifices in the day when I brought them out of the land of Egypt; But this thing i commanded them, saying, ‘Obey my voice, and i will be your God and you will be my people; and walk in the ways that I commanded you, that it may be well with you.” –Aramaic Peshitta text

Shedding of blood, animal or human, for the reconciliation among people or between God and humanity is a cruel and barbaric human idea. Ancient biblical scribes placed this command for blood sacrifice on the lips of God. Other prophets besides Jeremiah kew this TRUTH and cried out against the shedding of animal blood. Isaiah, the great Hebrew statesman and prophet declared:

“Of what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices to me? Says the Lord; I AM full of the burnt offerings of rams, and the fat of beasts; and I DO NOT DELIGHT in the blood of bullocks or of lambs or of he-goats. When you come to appear before me, WHO has required this at your hand, to tread my courts? Bring NO MORE VAIN OFFERINGS to me; their savour is an ABOMINATION to me; in the new moons and sabbaths, YOU call an assembly; I DO NOT eat that which is obtained wrongfully and taken by force. Your new moons and your appointed feasts MY SOUL REJECTS…And when you spread forth your hands, I will hide my eyes from you; even though you make many prayers, I will not hear; YOUR HANDS ARE FULL OF BLOOD.”
–Isaiah 1:11-15 Aramaic Peshitta text

Hosea, another prophet, says in the name of the Lord of Hosts:
“For I wanted compassion and not sacrifice; and the knowledge of God and not burnt offerings.” Hosea 6:6 Aramaic Peshitta text

Micah cried out against the notion of offering his own son as a sacrifice:

“With what will i come before the Lord, and how will I be pleasing before the high God? Will I come before him with burn offerings, or with calves of a year old? the Lord will not be pleased with thousands of rams, nor with ten thousands of heifers; if I should offer my firstborn it is an iniquity to myself and the fruit of my body, it is a sin against my soul. He has showed you, O man, what is good and what the Lord REQUIRES of you, that you will DO JUSTICE and LOVE COMPASSION and be ready to walk after the Lord your God.” Micah 6:6-8 Aramaic Peshitta text

So we see with many examples how MAN misunderstood God and therefore misconstrued what He really said. Just because it was written in the Torah did not make it 100% legitamate because we humans are fallible. The prophets would be killed and the message would come through yet another. Thus, “CHERRY PICKING” is a wise practice when one has truly searched the scriptures and by the power of the Holy Spirit is able to “rightly divide the word of truth.” I must quote 2 Timothy 2:15

“Be diligent to present yourself approved to God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, accurately handling the word of truth.” –New American Standard Version

Atheism is, in my opinion, a blessing to the seeker of God because it can serve as a tool to sharpen our own understanding of who we THINK God is into a more sound understanding of who we can BELIEVE he is. With the few examples that were stated above in response to Cindy’s statements, we see that there is much to learn of our Father…for how can we share what we yet do not have? How can we effectively discourse about what we must still wrap our minds around? The Hebrews of the OT were furious when the prophets cherry picked through the practices and scriptures that were true and openly declared what was erroneous concerning God! Jesus himself did the same and angered the Sanhedrin. He worked on the Sabbath by healing and casting out demons which was his way of cherry picking through the Jewish traditions and rituals. He brought TRUTH when he said no longer eye for an eye or tooth for an tooth, but do to others as you want they to do to you. No longer love your neighbor as yourself, but LOVE each other the way He LOVED. God bless the Atheists and grant them the Grace to find Truth and thank you for the existence of Atheism; for it is a great tool to cause a believer in God to question what/who/why we believe, if we even know….

I’m implicitly referring to evil perpetrated by human agents. But more generally, I could’ve just as easily have referred to evil perpetrated by intelligent agents, not necessarily human. It’s important to understand that evil is committed by intelligent agents. I regard the idea that evil can be committed by a natural agent to be fallacious.

Cancer is only natural inasmuch as it is caused by nature and nature alone, i.e when the cause of cancer is entirely out of human control. If you study cancer, you likely find out that there are many humanly made or humanly controlled cancer-causing agents out there. Therefore, to say that cancer is natural is a position that cannot be defended because it is impossible to separate the influence of the plethora of human cancer-causing agents from the purely natural ones.

The same goes for birth-defects and indeed all other diseases. It is impossible to determine where nature stops and human influence begins. It’s all a complex interaction of natural and unnatural factors that give rise to the wide landscape of illnesses and diseases that plague humanity.

As for natural disasters, it is impossible to ascribe evil to their causes unless there’s an intelligent agent behind their realisation. When a lightning strikes your neighbor dead, you cannot sue the cloud or clouds “responsible” for issuing that fatal lightning. When an earthquake hits and claims a number of lives you cannot hold the involved tectonic plates responsible for any sustained damages.

Likewise when someone dies by a gunshot-wound, you cannot hold the bullet responsible. You cannot even pin the sustained death on the gun that fired it. No, it’s the person who fired the gun, that you should be looking at. Bullets don’t kill people, guns don’t kill people, it’s people that kill people. Bullets, guns, cannons, poisons are only the means to that end. The killer, or perpetrator of evil in general, is never a thing, or nature, it’s always an intelligent agent, intentionally acting to either inflict harm or to assist another agent in doing so.

So you’re saying we should attack nature? For it wields the weapons of Earthquakes and Lightning. Or are you saying we should attack God? Because he is the creator/wielder of Nature.

I am Atheist, so I need you to further explain how you feel God is linked to Nature.

Here’s the way I see it. (using your analogy)
Bullet-Lightning-Earthquake
Gun-Cloud-Tectonic Plates
“Shooter”-God-God

Whether you believe God made the earthquake hit a city, or God just made tectonic plates. God is still the one behind the atrocity that is earthquakes…..

Which brings me to the only other question I’ll ask you. Why would God make things so complex? Why make tectonic plates that will cause the death of innocent people? Science can explain it, but it doesn’t sound reasonable that God would make tectonic plates. Another example would be humans having the complex structure allowing them to have tails that can function and are intertwined with our nervous system. Science explains why we would have those functional tails, for God to give us the ability to have/utilize tails, but not actually give us tails…sounds illogical.

I believe the atheist is ok to question the problem of evil because i personally do not understand why God does what he does. I’ve learned to see what they’re seeing and realize they are actually seeing something. Rather than attempt to negate their real experience of God not existing, ask why they believe this.

I can’t believe in God unless He reveals himself to me. The question I have for apologetic people is, Has God himself spoken to you, and what does He look like?

That will answer for yourself if god really exists? I want to build bridges with atheists because they are having valid concerns, and they really are quite intelligent to understand if something exists or not.
You have the intuitive or intellectual ability to know if the east bunny exists or not, therefore they are capable of discerning if God is real or not either.

Your arguments, while I read thoroughly seem correct, they could use your own arguments, whether santa exists and other child like beings exists.
I encourage Christians and theists to ask themselves, Have I ever seen God? Has He ever spoke to me? If you are having trouble asking or answering yourselves, you are probably not qualified to defend the existence of God.

I am learning that religious people are zealous and really love what they believe, just like the atheist, but if one has not really seen and experienced God than we all under the same boat. Religion defends a God that it has never encountered itself.